Example of Government pandering development without adequate infrastructure

Example of Government pandering development without adequate infrastructure

Example of Government pandering development without adequate infrastructure: They have no or adequate infrastructure. 250 houses at 2.5 cars per house is potentially 750 extra vehicles on the road per day, a proportion of which will have a good 10 mile drive to Bedford or Milton Keynes Rail Stations for commuting. The No. 41 bus offers hourly services via Yardley Road but that is all public transport wise and depends on subsidy from MK Council. Contrast a rail link which seat provides from walking/cycling distance of where they live and frees up pressure of road, parking and costs. Clearly we need bigger fry to bring this home and efforts to acquire it is welcome on all fronts. It may be presented as a piecemeal, isolated development, but x 18, 000 homes quoted for Bedford Borough, similar or more for MK and Northamptonshire, the impact is unsustainable without new and more infrastructure which includes parking management, not cost management, but adequate land use to accommodate it, rather than clogging up streets.

We don't need another quango, what we need is a force which can intercept these patterns and say think again, used to be Public Inquiry, now... there doesn't appear to be anything. We need more support for the railway and as far as ERTA goes it is steady as she goes into the new year and our plan, inadequate as may be is still a tabling of the rail link, which people can rally with or face the outcomes of their refusal to collaborate with, a mess accumulating and normalised as 'daily life'! We must beg to disagree. The railway can bypass Olney but like East-West Rail greater or lesser we're talking cost but time is clearly running out as development pressure mounts. Join our free no obligation loop richard.erta@gmail.com and support our call for reopening the local railway and join ERTA: https://ertarail.com/membership/

Bedford Borough Plan - where's the rail infrastructure?

There is a consultation in the Harpur Centre on the Bedford Local Plan 2035. See www.bedford.gov.uk/localplan2035. Email: planningforthefuture@bedford.gov.uk 
Check those houses at Bromham and relation to a clear access for Cobbler Line trajectory. 
Closing date is 9th June.
Questions via 01234 718300. Things we want is as follows:
a. Station at Oakley north of Lower Farm Road.
b. Retail Park Station on the MVR not MML!
c. East-West Rail sooner than later with Bedford-Sandy being delivered same time as Oxford-Bedford ideally - what are we getting for £10 million allocated?
d. All build results in road saturation and progressive gridlock. Same style houses being rolled out Bedford, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Cambridge... this results in ever more cloning of towns/residential estate areas.
e. Unless there's a more focused and coherent plan for the rail projects a-c by 2035 not after 2035, we will have a short fall of footfall and spend, informing closed shop syndrome and spiraling diminishment of traditional town centres, more out of town pressure to pander to the car. Empty properties abound domestic and commercial and more directives to fill and amend those first before green field expansion should be looked at.
f. Bedford-Northampton should be progressed with East-West not addendum to it/afterthought.
g. Network Rail must be flexible on level crossing and bridge adaptations, Cardington Road Bedford and Bridge Street Northampton need rail accessibility to be retained.
h. Wixams and/or Ampthill should be pursued together or incrementally, both serve differential markets - Wixams declutters commuting into Bedford for rail, Ampthill declutters Flitwick off the M1/A507 and all south of Wixams e.g. Marston Moretaine/A421 development corridor.